Idiot guide

[hrothgar]

I notice there was no comment about the 1NT with "no agreements".

Actually, there was...

 

As I noted earlier, the current implementation of the FD application requires that players assign a "Disposition" for each bid. I will repeat that once again: Players are REQUIRED to select a disposition from the following list:

 

No Agreement

Signoff

Non-forcing

Invitational

Forcing

Forcing to game

Slam try

Control Bid

Preemptive

Transfer

Puppet

Relay

Asking Bid

Asking Bid Response

 

Regretfully, none of these dispositions perfectly matches to a "Normal" opening bid like 1♠ or 1NT or the like. Some players have defaulted towards using "No Agreement". Others (including myself) prefer to describe these bids as "Constructive" openings.

 

Luckily, we have you to inform us that we're wrong regardless of what we choose.

 

>I'm far from an idiot, but several attempts to create an FD card for

>myself have failed miserably.

 

I respectly suggest that you probably should have spent more time looking at the application or some of these issues would already be clear. Alternatively, your "far from an idiot" estimate could be wrong.

[hrothgar]

> One gets no overall picture of the complete system used by the FD adherents.

 

Actually, one does... The FD application includes a separate window used to describe a "convention card summary". In a shocking develop, its generally believed that players should use the CC summary to get a general overview of the system.

 

FOr example, the CC summary for my MOSCITO card currently reads

 

MOSCITO = strong club, 4 card majors, and transfer openings.

1♦ = Hearts, 1♥ = Spades, 1♦ = unbalanced with 4+ Diamonds

 

1NT = 11+ - 14 2/1 = Natural and non forcing Frequent use of Relays

 

Assumed Fit Preempts

 

>One is not given sufficient information to enable one to anticipate future bids,

>and prepare responses to them.

 

And this is provided on traditional text based convention cards?

[david_c]

Regretfully, none of these dispositions perfectly matches to a "Normal" opening bid like 1♠ or 1NT or the like.  Some players have defaulted towards using "No Agreement".  Others (including myself) prefer to describe these bids as "Constructive" openings.

... or "non-forcing", which at least has the virtue of being obviously true.

 

I'm convinced that the solution to this is to make the disposition optional. By reducing the amount of irrelevant or inappropriate information, we make the remaining information more meaningful.

[csdenmark]

'Constructive' is just an alternative word for 'limit bid' meaning don't raise unless extra.

 

It is correct that 'no agreement' often looks strange. But if you know it is impossible to change - then no problem I think. It is so for NT bids but also for doubles and pass bids. You need to describe the meaning yourself.

 

It is correct it is difficult to have an overview in FD if FD-file is created as a system file. To read a convention card with 8 entries to 1NT opening is not for human beings. And FD is in fact not intended to be read by human beings but by computers. As Richard explains correctly there is a place for a summary of system. You may see my explanation here for: Bocchi-Duboin Club 2003

 

A FD-file only serving as a normal convention card will be created much simpler. There will only be one string for each opening which means display of bids will often and normally end after responders 1st bid, exactly as it does using normal convention cards. You read a FD-file created in that way as simple as you read any other convention card and in exactly the same way as the old convention card format.

[ducky_rh]

Beg to differ. "Constructive" lies somewhere between "non-forcing" and "invitational", and should only describe responding bids, since it "constructs", as in adding one brick to a wall.

 

When I have looked for the complete convention card belonging to opponents, all I found was a mostly-blank traditional text card, so I guess I haven't found the trick to unlocking the Pandora's Box containing the wealth of information that some claim is available.

 

FD is potentially a good idea, but I do not think it should be used when it requires the opponents to ignore what is shown and assume that something else is true.

[csdenmark]

Beg to differ.  "Constructive" lies somewhere between "non-forcing" and "invitational", and should only describe responding bids, since it "constructs", as in adding one brick to a wall.

 

When I have looked for the complete convention card belonging to opponents, all I found was a mostly-blank traditional text card, so I guess I haven't found the trick to unlocking the Pandora's Box containing the wealth of information that some claim is available.

 

FD is potentially a good idea, but I do not think it should be used when it requires the opponents to ignore what is shown and assume that something else is true.

FD provides the intended information and nothing else. If the intended information is false it is a violation of bridge laws and has nothing to do with options in FD.

 

I think wise of you to try to be inspired from FD-files created carefully.

[luke warm]

The other night, I asked three times for an explanation of an FD bid.  I received three different answers, with more information added to the response each time.  This is proof of the pudding that FD is False Disclosure.  All that information should have been provided IN THE FD NOTICE, but was not.  Had I not asked, I would never have received the information.  And to top it all off, the information, or some of it, was given to me in a private message, so my partner remained partly in the dark.

the other night you played against me and i was *not* using FD at the time... here, for others to see, is exactly what happened

 

i opened the bidding 1C, partner bid 1D, i bid 1S and alerted it as "unbalanced"... you (or your partner) then clicked on my bid, so i felt compelled to add another line... i wrote "guarantees 5+ clubs else 3 suited hand - unbalanced"... had i been using FD, all of that would have been in it... my partner and i didn't have agreements suitable for any FD either of us had created

 

since the original 'unbalanced' obviously wasn't understood, it then struck me that perhaps the 2nd explaination might seem, somehow, cryptic... so i then clicked the double arrows, sending a message to you *and* your partner, that opener can bypass a major with balanced hands.. someone called the TD (i assume you) and i told him i'd gladly take a screen shot of all that had been said.. he said no need

 

it is at the very least disingenious, if not dishonest, of you to post that

 

1) FD was in use when it most definitely was not,

2) that your opps were trying to hide something from you or deceive you in any way, or that

3) your partner was not a party to all that you were

 

FD is a great program... before you criticize that which you possibly don't understand, i think you should at least try to utilize its features... yes, there are errors made when people first start... even though i wasn't using FD this particular night, the aim is to eventually have most people use this cc, so consider errors you observe to be data entry errors - growing pains - rather than some nefarious attempt to hide partnership agreements from you

[Sigi_BC84]

Beg to differ.  "Constructive" lies somewhere between "non-forcing" and "invitational", and should only describe responding bids, since it "constructs", as in adding one brick to a wall.

I disagree; "constructive" can be very well applied to opening bids, if these are made in the intention of starting an auction that allows your own side to reach the best spot (as opposed to preemptive openers which are mainly made to deprive the opponents of that possibility).

 

Example: ♠AKQJxx♥xx♦x♣xxxx Depending on your style you could open this constructively (1♠) or preemptively (2♠) in a standard system.

 

FD is potentially a good idea, but I do not think it should be used when it requires the opponents to ignore what is shown and assume that something else is true.

Maybe a better disposition for the bids under discussion is needed. "No Agreement" certainly misses the point and unfortunately it is being chosen for the lack of a better alternative.

Also, many people don't bother correctly specifying the final outcome of the auction (the "♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ NT Def" bit). This could also be regarded as non-information you are required to ignore.

 

It would be best if one could turn off unused parts of FD so that nothing at all would be shown.

 

I also think that the system is not flexible enough for specifying what you hold after artificial bids (e.g. if 2♦ is showing a weak two in a major, you have to specify that in the text and you have to specify something like 0-7♦s as well, even though that's quite irrelevant and maybe not even true because nobody will open a multi with 6=0=7=0).

 

--Sigi

[ducky_rh]

I have yet to decipher what the "♠♥♦♣NT-Def" feature does or means...when I click on it, nothing happens...why is it there?

 

FD may be a fun tool for computer techies to play with, and maybe they can overlook its obvious flaws and inaccuracies, but for a player accustomed to the standard text convention card, it is not an improvement, it is simply an obstacle which we must attempt to overcome. As I said previously, the FD bidders know exactly the full extent of their system, and the full meaning of their bids. THEY know that "No Agreement" does NOT mean "NO Agreement" but WE DO NOT. They know that "constructive" has taken on a new meaning, but those of us who learned the meaning that I decsribe DO NOT.

 

Tournament directors and sponsors ask us to disclose fully the meaning of our artificial bids. In my brief experience playing against FD bidders, this has not been the case. If there is no built-in option for describing the full agreement represented by an FD bid, perhaps another option should be added to the list, instead of telling us that it is an obvious flaw and perhaps inaccurate but we should just learn to live with it. Why not an option such as "please ask"?

 

Further, why should such a flawed system be FORCED upon us in tournament conditions, leaving us who are unfamiliar with the system to deal with the unfamiliarities and inaccuracies under time constraints, when we'd rather be concentrating on the game, and not a flawed, inaccurate, obscure system of disclosure?

 

Simply stated, FD is a PAIN IN THE ASS, and I wish it would go away.

[hrothgar]

>I have yet to decipher what the "♠♥♦♣NT-Def" feature

>does or means...when I click on it, nothing happens...why is it there?

 

As an auction progresses the number of potential strains that a partnership can play in collapses towards unitary.

 

Assume the following auction

 

1N - 2D

2H - 3D

3H - 3S

4D - 4H

 

The 1NT opening doesn't fix strain. The partnership could conceivably play in Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts, Spades, or NT.

 

The 2D response eliminated Spades as a potential trump suit. (If partner held 5+ Spades, he would have started with 2♥. If partner held 4♠ and 5+ Hearts, he would have started with a 2♣ response)

 

In a similar manner, the 3♦ eliminates Clubs as a potentially trump suit. Once the 1NT opener rebids 3♥, the only possible strains are Hearts and NT....

 

The field that you are looking at in the FD explanation is used to to indicate the set of strains that the players can still (conceivably) play in.

[hrothgar]

Further, why should such a flawed system be FORCED upon us in tournament conditions, leaving us who are unfamiliar with the system to deal with the unfamiliarities and inaccuracies under time constraints, when we'd rather be concentrating on the game, and not a flawed, inaccurate, obscure system of disclosure?

Regretfully, you're being used as a guinea pig.

 

Very little in life starts out perfect... This is especially true where radically new functionality is being introduced to computer software. The FD application represents a VERY significant change from any that online bridge has seen before. Growing pains are going to be inevitable.

 

Try to take consolation in the fact all of our experiences with FD will (hopefully) be used to create a new and improved version...

 

>Simply stated, FD is a PAIN IN THE ASS, and I wish it would go away.

 

Said it before, said it again... If the system is so annoying just ignore it. No one is forcing you to move your mouse over those explanations. With this said and done, I suggest that you suck it up and learn to live with FD application. The players who are using FD do so so that they don't need to type out long explanations of all their bids.

 

If/when I get asked to explain a bid that is adequately described by the FD application, I am simply going to referrence folks to the application. What's the old saying: "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."

[luke warm]

I have yet to decipher what the "♠♥♦♣NT-Def" feature does or means...when I click on it, nothing happens...why is it there?

to use, for those who choose to use it... it probably doesn't *have* to be there, but so far you're the only person i've seen who is irritated by it

 

FD may be a fun tool for computer techies to play with, and maybe they can overlook its obvious flaws and inaccuracies

what flaws? what inaccuracies?

 

As I said previously, the FD bidders know exactly the full extent of their system, and the full meaning of their bids.  THEY know that "No Agreement" does NOT mean "NO Agreement" but WE DO NOT.

any partnership, whether using FD or not, who answers an alert with 'no agreement' have no agreement.. this seems to be a mere assertion, and it verges on slanderous (not legally, ethically)... give an example of a pair using FD whose bid said 'no agreement' yet was *known* by you to have an agreement.. if you have no such example, try not to paint with such a broad stroke

 

Further, why should such a flawed system be FORCED upon us in tournament conditions, leaving us who are unfamiliar with the system to deal with the unfamiliarities and inaccuracies under time constraints, when we'd rather be concentrating on the game, and not a flawed, inaccurate, obscure system of disclosure?

it isn't forced on you... you can use the text based CC if you want... and if there are inaccurancies (you've yet to cite any), they aren't the fault of this marvelous program, no more than a letter i write using Word proves how flawed that program might be

 

Simply stated, FD is a PAIN IN THE ASS, and I wish it would go away.

give us some examples, don't make ungrounded assertions... ducky, when you open the bidding 1C, do you alert it? do you even alert 1H as "5+ cards?" you probably don't have to, unless there's some agreement between you and partner concerning those bids... but using FD, the opps would know what the bids mean, or at least what the p'ship understands the bids to mean

 

in your p'ship if the bidding goes

 

1C : 1H

1NT

 

do you alert any of those? can 1H bypass longer diamonds? do you explain inferences your partner gains from your bids? in FD, we do.. if 1NT denies a 4 card major, and if my partner knows this, so should the opps... i played against you (see post above, where you made many inaccurate statements) and didn't see any alerts or explanations for any of those

 

FD is more than a program designed to alert certain bids... the name, Full Disclosure, says it all... the function of the program is to disclose to the opps that which is known by the p'ship making the bids... as with any program, the operators will make errors until their tasks become second nature... to call the system "flawed," "inaccurate," and "obscure" is, imho, a flawed, inaccurate, and obscure criticism

 

added by edit:

i want to say another word about 'no agreement' in FD... it's the default setting on bids until a person writes something in.. so if a pair uses FD and a bid reads 'no agreement' they either have no agreement else have left it blank because the meaning is, or should be, obvious... perhaps the default should be something else, who knows? but i do know that i have clicked on an opps' bids in the past and received 'no agreement' as an answer...

 

for example, if i open 1H and partner bids 2H, i would only alert that bid if there was an agreement (shows 7-9, 3 card support, etc)... the same in FD... if there is no such p'ship agreement, FD defaults to 'no agreement'... this is the same as 'no alert' by a pair not using FD

 

very few people now alert a 1 level bid, even though they all carry meanings for partner... just because the bid isn't alerted doesn't mean there is no agreement... if an opp is interested, just ask... in FD an attempt is being made to limit that type thing by allowing a pair to type in agreements for bids... so in that sense, a pair using FD will show *far* more of their understandings than a pair not using it

[david_c]

ducky_rh points out a lot of things that are wrong with FD, and I grudgingly have to admit that I agree with him about nearly all of them. I've been convinced from the start that the "possible outcomes" were a bad idea - not only is it very doubtful that they provide useful information, ducky_rh's post proves the point that people don't understand what they mean anyway. And the "disposition" desperately needs to be made optional (which would solve the "no agreement" problem immediately). These things could [should?] have been fixed painlessly before FD became active on BBO. They still need to be fixed, but it will involve changes to the file format (though I believe this can be done without making anyone's files unusable.) I remain hopeful that we will see the end of the possible outcomes some day soon.

 

Having said all that, I still think FD is a great step forward. ducky_rh complains that it is not as good as a standard convention card, but this is missing the point. Disclosure does not end with the convention card: you have a convention card, but then also you give explanations at the table. FD's strength is in replacing the explanations, not replacing the convention card. For example, before FD I had to type in "Either real diamonds or 11-13 BAL" every time I opened a Precision 1♦. Now FD can do this for me - and not only that, it can give a much clearer and more detailed explanation than my attempt at doing it in one line. Ideally we would have both FD and a more standard convention card, integrated in some way. Maybe this will be possible in the future. But despite all the flaws FD has at the moment, it's still a wonderful thing.

[42]

I was using an FD CC before but now needed to make some personal changes. I went through and it is one of the best things I ever used! Not only that I don't have to explain my bids during playing anymore (and I like giving the whole information....) which distracts and takes time, I can go again through our whole system together with my partner: talking about some things while drinking a cup of coffee isn't the same as writing agreements down together for using/showing them in public.

There were some minor questions at the beginning, perhaps also due to language problems, but Ben answered them kindly and the rest was easy doing.

I also like it when people use a CC because it shows that they don't "muddle" in the current situation, it is fair play imo (I don't imply that people who use non are unfair per default!!)

Consequences:

- I wish I had another life time for using all the fancy things that are offered here, learning more and more (as well as playing a lot)

- I wish I could print the CC :lol:

Thanks again, Fred and all your helpers!

Caren

[csdenmark]

ducky_rh points out a lot of things that are wrong with FD, and I grudgingly have to admit that I agree with him about nearly all of them. I've been convinced from the start that the "possible outcomes" were a bad idea - not only is it very doubtful that they provide useful information, ducky_rh's post proves the point that people don't understand what they mean anyway. And the "disposition" desperately needs to be made optional (which would solve the "no agreement" problem immediately). These things could [should?] have been fixed painlessly before FD became active on BBO. They still need to be fixed, but it will involve changes to the file format (though I believe this can be done without making anyone's files unusable.) I remain hopeful that we will see the end of the possible outcomes some day soon.

 

Having said all that, I still think FD is a great step forward. ducky_rh complains that it is not as good as a standard convention card, but this is missing the point. Disclosure does not end with the convention card: you have a convention card, but then also you give explanations at the table. FD's strength is in replacing the explanations, not replacing the convention card. For example, before FD I had to type in "Either real diamonds or 11-13 BAL" every time I opened a Precision 1♦. Now FD can do this for me - and not only that, it can give a much clearer and more detailed explanation than my attempt at doing it in one line. Ideally we would have both FD and a more standard convention card, integrated in some way. Maybe this will be possible in the future. But despite all the flaws FD has at the moment, it's still a wonderful thing.

Agree David. 'No agreement' is a bug. It is there as standard for Pass, DBL and RDBL with no option to change. As all info in a FD-file per definition is agreed that explanation must be removed.

 

I think you need to think about the history for the creation of FD. I think you still remember all the complainments for missing alerts we once had. At least such has become rare in Forum and I assume most of the problems have been solved with FD and rest are re-addressed.

 

But Ducky seems to try to wipe out the baby together with bathing water. That is silly.

[fred]

The next version of BBO (beta will be released by Monday) will contain a new version of FD with the following options for displaying dispositions, suit lengths, and possible outcomes:

 

1) display always

2) display never

3) display only when not set to the default value

 

Settings for each of dispositions, lengths, and outcomes are stored seperately. The default value of all 3 of these new settings will be 3 above.

 

Those of you who find these parts of the automated descriptions annoying and/or useless will thus be able to disable them.

 

I have had a lot of feedback about FD since our last official release. Almost all this feedback has been either very positive or very negative.

 

My conclusions so far is that FD is a good idea, but that it will not become useful for the average BBO member until we either make it easier for people to enter their own systems or offer more and better stock files.

 

Sorry I have not had much chance to improve the FD application during the past couple of months. This is unlikely to change soon.

 

Good news is that there is some new movement of the FD file creation front, both from volunteers and from some people who work for BBO.

 

Hopefully you will see some much improved stock FD files soon and hopefully this will help to make the application more popular.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[david_c]

The next version of BBO (beta will be released by Monday) will contain a new version of FD with the following options for displaying dispositions, suit lengths, and possible outcomes:

 

1) display always

2) display never

3) display only when not set to the default value

 

Settings for each of dispositions, lengths, and outcomes are stored seperately. The default value of all 3 of these new settings will be 3 above.

 

Those of you who find these parts of the automated descriptions annoying and/or useless will thus be able to disable them.

I'm a bit confused - are these options set by the person who creates the file, or does each person that the file is displayed to get to choose which things they want to see?

[fred]

The next version of BBO (beta will be released by Monday) will contain a new version of FD with the following options for displaying dispositions, suit lengths, and possible outcomes:

 

1) display always

2) display never

3) display only when not set to the default value

 

Settings for each of dispositions, lengths, and outcomes are stored seperately. The default value of all 3 of these new settings will be 3 above.

 

Those of you who find these parts of the automated descriptions annoying and/or useless will thus be able to disable them.

I'm a bit confused - are these options set by the person who creates the file, or does each person that the file is displayed to get to choose which things they want to see?

Each person sets his own 3 new options (and these are remember between BBO sessions in the file on your hard disk that stores user options).

 

Those options will apply when that person views any automatic explanation generated by FD.

 

So a person who hates dispositions can turn them off always.

 

A person who loves them can turn then on always.

 

A person who wants to see dispositions only if they have been set to something other than "no agreement" can arrange for that.

 

FD files will remain the same regardless. These options only determine how the automatic explanations generated by file will be displayed.

 

The settings that the file author chooses are not relevant to what other people who view his files will see.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[david_c]

Oh. I was sort of hoping for the other answer :)

 

Isn't this just going to cause more problems? Like, you make a bid which you think FD has described as "Forcing to game", but you're not sure whether the opponents can see that?

[Sigi_BC84]

I think the default value (setting #3) is the best option for most people -- most will probably feel no need to change it. It should have been the default behaviour of FD to begin with, so basically introducing it can be seen as a bug fix.

 

If people change that option one should assume that they knew what they were doing (probably they are FD users themselves and are annoyed by bad FD files or whatever). If somebody gets damaged because he or she randomly changed options in the BBO client, well, bad luck for them I'd say.

 

In my eyes the worst case is assumed too often at the moment when FD features are being discussed. Somebody is confused by a certain aspect of FD and downright assumes that this will lead to major cases of misinformation and appeals. Let's be a bit more optimistic and actually assume some basic common sense and intelligence with BBO players.

 

The "possible outcomes" part of the explanation box should get a label, however. You can deduce what it must mean, but here one should in fact assume that many players will be confused -- especially since it's completely unusual to point out the potential strains at the current point of an auction. People probably don't expect this kind of information so it will be hard for them to understand that it's being presented to them at all. An explanatory label will make it clearer.

 

--Sigi

[fred]

Oh. I was sort of hoping for the other answer :)

 

Isn't this just going to cause more problems? Like, you make a bid which you think FD has described as "Forcing to game", but you're not sure whether the opponents can see that?

That is not your problem.

 

This is analogous to properly filling out your convention card and the opponents not bothering to look at the information you provided.

 

Or it is analogous to properly alerting a bid and the opponents not bothering to ask for the meaning.

 

If they make a poor bridge decision as a result, that is their problem.

 

If you are an FD file author and don't want people to see outcomes (for example) just leave outcomes alone when you make your file. Since the default setting is "show outcomes only if they are set to non-default setting", the only people who will see anything for outcomes are those who love outcomes so much that they want to see them all the time (they will use the "always" setting to accomplish this).

 

On the other hand, if you are an FD file author and if you want to use outcomes in your files, most people will see will see them. The only ones who don't will be those who use the "never" for the new outcomes setting. Could they miss some important information as a result? Sure, but that is their problem. They have intentionally blocked the information you are trying to provide them.

 

I am pretty sure the method I described for handling this is best for both FD file authors and for people who view the files they create.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[david_c]

Apologies if any of my posts seem a bit negative, I really do think that FD is great, but at the same time there are a few things which would make it so much better.

 

It's good to be able to stop displaying the "No agreement" disposition. It means that when there's no disposition which fits, I can select "No agreement" and it will be much clearer to the reader. But this really needs to be controlled by the writer of the file, not the reader. Otherwise, if the reader selects "display always" then they will be told "No agreement" even when that isn't true. This problem could be easily solved by creating a new disposition called something like "Do not display" (or, if you like, an empty string). Possibly this could replace "No agreement" as the default. Any chance, Fred?

 

For suit lengths, there is a further complication in that the default ("Any #") is often quite useful information. I'd really love to be able to define some bids as "Any #" and others as "Do not display suit length". But I realise that this would be a relatively large change to the program.

[fred]

It's good to be able to stop displaying the "No agreement" disposition. It means that when there's no disposition which fits, I can select "No agreement" and it will be much clearer to the reader. But this really needs to be controlled by the writer of the file, not the reader. Otherwise, if the reader selects "display always" then they will be told "No agreement" even when that isn't true. This problem could be easily solved by creating a new disposition called something like "Do not display" (or, if you like, an empty string). Possibly this could replace "No agreement" as the default. Any chance, Fred?

Some chance. I will think about it.

 

However, I would prefer to at least release a beta with the new options and see what people think once they have had a chance to try it. I hear what you are saying, but I think in practice the current approach will almost always be effective. I could certainly change my mind after thinking about this some more and after getting some feedback from people who try the next version.

 

I am going to Taiwan on Monday which will be the beginning of 4 weeks of almost non-stop bridge for me. Whatever time I have for work will likely be spent on replying to e-mail and fixing bugs.

 

So, once I release the final beta before I leave, it is unlikely that you will see any major changes to either FD or the BBO client during the next month.

 

No need to apologize - it is obvious from your posts that you are trying to be constructive and that you have given a lot of thought to FD. If you want to know what "negative" is like, I could post some of the FD-related e-mails I have received (just kidding).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com